Wow, so you already know that only "few people" would like to have an SD-port in their iPad? Let me guess, you also believe that multitasking and a front-facing camera are merely desires of the "few". Come on, I kind of like the iPad, but this is dumb - the device clearly lacks some core functionalities, and it's only fair to point that out. Especially when Apple is trying to pad its pockets by offering functionality that should come standard in such a device at a premium (USB and SD). There's no excuse for this; the presence of those ports in the iPad wouldn't have hurt the design or the ease of use - they probably wouldn't even have driven up the price.

Nope, it's a media consumption device. It currently lacks Flash. Flash is the one technology it MUST have which is currently doesn't. And yes, I do know that a minority of people will use an SD card slot, as few people currently use SD cards - in the UK at least they're used by photographers for cameras - that's about it, no doubt the reason why the USB and SD kit is referred to as the "camera" accessory for iPad.

(That damn advert at the top of this page is still destroying the web site. Go Flash!)

The target audience for this device either don't know what an SD card even is, or have a grown up computer at work/in their home office for work.

I know some people just don't get this. But it's a web browser, you can check your email and read ebooks, while playing music (and some people will prepare home accounts or the church newsletter on.) That it might be used for more - great. But it's a consumer level device.

Oh, and multitasking (which it already does) is the desire of a few, most users of this device won't even know what multi-tasking is.

I'm sure that come March 30th or whenever this device is launched, that it will have gained a front-facing camera.

"We listened to your feedback after our January event and one of the things we found you wanted was a front-facing camera for video calls. Well, we've added one! Look, you can have a video chat online whilst surfing the web or making notes. In addition we've a new peripheral - the Wall Dock, so that you can charge the tablet at face height whilst making VOIP calls. Suck on that AT&T!"

Or something like that.

Maybe some more hints of multitasking too. At least being able to run two user apps at the same time, one in the background and one in the foreground. The iPad has a dock-like thing, perfect for putting running apps.

I still think the device is missing two things - a USB port and an SD-card slot. I know the former especially could look tatty, but the OS is meant to support USB Host, but a dock->USB adapter looks worse. It could have a cover of some sort? They could have the decency to put the full USB port on the iPad dock offerings at least.

Nope, it's a media consumption device. It currently lacks Flash. Flash is the one technology it MUST have which is currently doesn't. And yes, I do know that a minority of people will use an SD card slot, as few people currently use SD cards - in the UK at least they're used by photographers for cameras - that's about it, no doubt the reason why the USB and SD kit is referred to as the "camera" accessory for iPad.

(That damn advert at the top of this page is still destroying the web site. Go Flash!)

The target audience for this device either don't know what an SD card even is, or have a grown up computer at work/in their home office for work.

I know some people just don't get this. But it's a web browser, you can check your email and read ebooks, while playing music (and some people will prepare home accounts or the church newsletter on.) That it might be used for more - great. But it's a consumer level device.

Oh, and multitasking (which it already does) is the desire of a few, most users of this device won't even know what multi-tasking is.

I know, and it looks like a great media consumption device - what irks me is that it could easily have been much more than that without taking anything away from ease of use, design or even the price point. It could have been a fantastic consumption device as well as a more serious machine if they had only added multitasking, a camera and some connectivity (so that you could save iWork files to a USB-stick or even use an external drive to back up the iPad on Time Machine). The iPad could have been a computer in its own right with just these few tweaks. Granted, they would also have had to untether it from iTunes and perhaps give it some kind of mobile Finder, but none of this would have been impossible. Believe me, I never expected a Wacom-screen or full OS X, but I sure expected at least part of the features I just mentioned.

EDIT: Your point about multitasking is not very convincing, by the way. Sure, ask average users what multitasking is and they probably won't be able to define the term. But they sure as heck DO IT every day. The same thing goes for Flash, as much as I hate it. Even my very non-tech-savvy father multitasks routinely and uses Flash very often, even if he doesn't actually know what he's doing. He would miss those features in the iPad while actually being part of its target audience - this is not a good thing.

BTW, I'm not a fan of SD-cards, I only use them on my "cheap" camera (Canon S90) - my DSLR uses faster CF-cards. Still, an SD-slot would have been a nice addition, along with a USB-port.

the foward facing camera is a big deal for a small amount of people, most people that have a mac dont use the video chat features at all, therefore if the camera software/hardware isnt perfect its not gonna be there upon release---exactly what happened on the ipod touch--- the camera would also just raise the price and most people arent gonna use it in the first place, most of the ipads sold are gonna be the cheap 500 one, raising the price would just make people get a netbook which is what apple wants to kill.

now if they do include a camera they should include somekind of photobooth app, like they do on macs, with cool effects and everything, that is a feature more people will use and wll give the average joe a fun justification for a camera, it will definately give it an upper hand over an iphone apart from books and a bigger screen
video chat
photobooth
books
comfy big screen
these are the things that have to be made to justify the ipad to the average joe vs the iphone
APPLE MAKE THE IPAD DO THINGS THE IPHONE CANT, NOT JUST BETTER VERSIONS OF THINGS THE IPHONE CAN DO

The more I get the impression Apple released the iPad in a hurry. They might include iSight, and they should. The whole keynote looked less polished than usual and with less "wow" than what we got used to.
Moreover, in non-US sites the price is provided (which is unusual for a non released product) and all prices are still in US Dollars.

This tells me that the iPad is somehow still under development, at least software-wise. iWork is nice and interesting, but some software is missing big time:
- iLife. After all iLife is a major selling point for Apple and one thing the iPad could really use to be a compelling piece of hardware
- iMagazines. Besides books, on a gorgeous color display, one wonders why Magazines have not been included (National Geographic just to mention one).
- Multitasking. I believe multitasking, at least a couple of background apps running while doing other stuff, is a major missing feature

All this makes me believe that the iPad wasn't exactly "ready for market". Although I understand concerns related to keeping the price affordable I wonder how much of an impact would an iSight camera have made on one side and how much of an impact would iLife made on the other... As well as iMagazines which would even have repaid themselves.

I will not buy the iPad since I am not really in the target. But being an Apple fan I would have considered it if it had some of the mentioned features, which would have made it "better at certain tasks".

I know, and it looks like a great media consumption device - what irks me is that it could easily have been much more than that without taking anything away from ease of use, design or even the price point. It could have been a fantastic consumption device as well as a more serious machine if they had only added multitasking, a camera and some connectivity (so that you could save iWork files to a USB-stick or even use an external drive to back up the iPad on Time Machine). The iPad could have been a computer in its own right with just these few tweaks. Granted, they would also have had to untether it from iTunes and perhaps give it some kind of mobile Finder, but none of this would have been impossible. Believe me, I never expected a Wacom-screen or full OS X, but I sure expected at least part of the features I just mentioned.

EDIT: Your point about multitasking is not very convincing, by the way. Sure, ask average users what multitasking is and they probably won't be able to define the term. But they sure as heck DO IT every day. The same thing goes for Flash, as much as I hate it. Even my very non-tech-savvy father multitasks routinely and uses Flash very often, even if he doesn't actually know what he's doing. He would miss those features in the iPad while actually being part of its target audience - this is not a good thing.

BTW, I'm not a fan of SD-cards, I only use them on my "cheap" camera (Canon S90) - my DSLR uses faster CF-cards. Still, an SD-slot would have been a nice addition, along with a USB-port.

Again, Apple have recognised this requirement and as such have provided easy ways to attach USB and SD peripherals from the off.

I'm not arguing against the inclusion of flash - it's an absolute must, but it is for Adobe to fix their software so that this can be implemented - they've got two months and need to pull their finger out.

the foward facing camera is a big deal for a small amount of people, most people that have a mac dont use the video chat features at all, therefore if the camera software/hardware isnt perfect its not gonna be there upon release

I disagree particularly with the amount of "augmented reality" apps that are on the App Store as well as the fact that, opposed to the iPod Touch, the iPad has a stand with keyboard which makes the iSight position ideal for video chatting. The target is a business target and a casual home target. I can imagine people using it differently than a MacBook or an iPhone (which is also Apple's idea for the device). That said why not be able to answer a skype call on the couch with the camera in a perfect position for video chatting? Why not use and share iWork documents among colleagues while videochatting on iChat?

My opinion is that, if people use the iPad differently than existing devices, I can also imagine the use of a front-facing camera would increase or be more beneficial than we actually acknowledge.

Again, Apple have recognised this requirement and as such have provided easy ways to attach USB and SD peripherals from the off.

I'm not arguing against the inclusion of flash - it's an absolute must, but it is for Adobe to fix their software so that this can be implemented - they've got two months and need to pull their finger out.

Yes, well, they quite inelegantly address a single one of my points by providing an optional dongle. That's still pretty unimpressive. Like it or not, the points I raised in my previous post are valid, or at least they all point to as yet unanswered questions concerning this device.

Bring it to market on an up-date with the things we want bring the price up, and we say, "that's fine, at least it has a camera now".

This also gives them time to find out what folks think, what folks like, what folks don't like, what folks might be willing to pay for these things/upgrades, and when in all of the up-dates coming out over the next 2 years, do we introduce said things.

We the general public, end up with the 1st edition iPad, the 3rd update (because the 1st is worn out a bit, and no where near as cool (and we're hooked by now, so the extra bucks don't even play into it), and we can't wait for the next upgrade, because there's RUMORS about it having ?

For this reason alone, you have to both Love apple and Hate Apple

Skip

PS I'll be curious as to what Apple will be willing to pay, and if fact may pay, to get the name iPad from the foreign company?

Guys, Apple genius is the real magical part in all this. As some have pointed out:

1a. Announce and wow everybody as much as they can.
1b. Say "60 days" and "90 days for 3G"
2. See how many suckers erm.. I mean early adopters sign up
3. Analyse feedback and backlash, complaints
4. Watch all other tech companies sh*t themselves coming up with competitors
5. Watch said companies come up with stuff in 2 months
6a. See which telcos come begging for the device, if any
6b. See which publishers/etc come begging to partner with Apple, if any
7. In two months, items 1 to 6 will be clear
8. 2 weeks before launch and production ramp, drop appropriate bombs if needed:
(a) front-facing camera
(b) iChat app
(c) defined multitasking
(d) price drops

So, given the hysteria on how great or how crap it is, I say things are falling nicely into place for Apple.

They have everything laid out to decide whether to roll with this "crap underpowered no-multitasking no-camera piece of garbage without 3G" at $499, or throw a little glitter into the mix.

It could go both ways at this stage, I say. We have about 50 days to go to see what turns out.

You must remember Apple has a roadmap for this product and they have to put out a [highly] profitable device, they don't do loss-leaders.

Some features may come, some may never (like Blu Ray after all these years).

Maybe, except for the abysmal codec support (I presume), the lack of a proper aspect ratio, and the inability to access lots of web sites.

That kills it as a great media consumption device for me. Hell, that kills it as a "good enough" device for me.

Aspect ratio and resolution also concern me, as does the lack of Flash (although this really isn't Apple's fault). However, thanks to Air Video Pro, I don't think Codec support is going to be a big problem. Or did you mean anything specific by that?

@ iMat, sorry cant quote on schools network for some reason, lol im in history class

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I think a front facing camera is a great idea and has many uses, but the bulk of the ipads sold will be to people who wont give it use anyway, so its better to keep the camera developement in the oven for a little while longer until its perfect, or as many people theorize introduce it as a second generation feature,

you have to remember that ipad development until now has been all negative income, and apple is after our money after all, as opposed to what some people think is to make the world happy, its better to sell a well rounded device lacking a couple of features to get some income to fuel further development than to sell a device with buggy camera software and instead of making ur loyal fans happy piss them off and ruin your "it just works" reputation

nvidia2008-- "If the 1st year of the iPad is relatively meh, by middle of 2011 you could see iPad 10" and 13" widescreens, with a specialised OSX for ARM announced. Boy, that would be sexy, no?"

why doesnt apple take their macbook, cut out the keyboard and trackpad, get smaller speakers, cut out the disc drive, swithch the hard drive for a ssd, cut out firewire, ethernet, slim down the profile in sleek aluminum, and place the screen unto the body, port Snowleopard into a touch interface,and VUALA!!! introducing the iPad Pro

why doesnt apple take their macbook, cut out the keyboard and trackpad, get smaller speakers, cut out the disc drive, swithch the hard drive for a ssd, cut out firewire, ethernet, slim down the profile in sleek aluminum, and place the screen unto the body, port Snowleopard into a touch interface,and VUALA!!! introducing the iPad Pro

LOL because Apple likes to *invent* things and doesn't always take the most efficient route.

nvidia2008-- "If the 1st year of the iPad is relatively meh, by middle of 2011 you could see iPad 10" and 13" widescreens, with a specialised OSX for ARM announced. Boy, that would be sexy, no?"

why doesnt apple take their macbook, cut out the keyboard and trackpad, get smaller speakers, cut out the disc drive, swithch the hard drive for a ssd, cut out firewire, ethernet, slim down the profile in sleek aluminum, and place the screen unto the body, port Snowleopard into a touch interface,and VUALA!!! introducing the iPad Pro

why doesnt apple take their macbook, cut out the keyboard and trackpad, get smaller speakers, cut out the disc drive, swithch the hard drive for a ssd, cut out firewire, ethernet, slim down the profile in sleek aluminum, and place the screen unto the body, port Snowleopard into a touch interface,and VUALA!!! introducing the iPad Pro

Actually then people will complain, it's CRIPPPLED! OMFG! Noooo! Bad Apple! The iPad Pro should have a disc drive, better speakers, firewire, ethernet, trackpad and fold out physical keypad...!

Apple is supporting open format HTML 5. Flash will get no support UNLESS the device does not sell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkhm

I'm not arguing against the inclusion of flash - it's an absolute must, but it is for Adobe to fix their software so that this can be implemented - they've got two months and need to pull their finger out.

Apple is supporting open format HTML 5. Flash will get no support UNLESS the device does not sell.

I'd say from launch to end of 2010 Apple can clear 5 million iPads easily. Which they will then trumpet as "more than any eBook reader, including the Kindle".

Flash will be left out. Unless interest after 2010 wanes sharply but by 2011 you'll have a whole slew of new apps, web browsing will be the thing you won't do much.

Apple is going to bet heavily on the App ecosystem to make up for a lot of what people consider to be deficiencies.

Flash will just depend on Adobe to come to the table with ARM-enabled Flash 10+ running *smoothly* on Android, iPad, etc. Which could happen... If there are sufficient Android and iPad units out there.

Just a thought! How good would it actually be to have a camera on this device? You have a portable device which has some weight and not the easiest of grips - it s not as easy to hold as an iphone is it? To actually have any good image you would have to hold it steady at a certain height, otherwise (if we are talking about video chatting) you will have a shaky shadowy image of your chin.
If it had a camera people would be disapointed with the applications

Aspect ratio and resolution also concern me, as does the lack of Flash (although this really isn't Apple's fault). However, thanks to Air Video Pro, I don't think Codec support is going to be a big problem. Or did you mean anything specific by that?

What I meant is that my iPhone has horrible support for video and audio codecs. No .flac or .ogg, no DIVX, no lots of other common formats.

I have to transcode lots and lots of media in order to get it to play on my iPhone. I hope that the iPad will support many more standard formats out of the box or (even better) will allow users to install their preferred codecs rather than being locked in to Apple's choices.

What I meant is that my iPhone has horrible support for video and audio codecs. No .flac or .ogg, no DIVX, no lots of other common formats.

I have to transcode lots and lots of media in order to get it to play on my iPhone. I hope that the iPad will support many more standard formats out of the box or (even better) will allow users to install their preferred codecs rather than being locked in to Apple's choices.

I can't think of a single scenario in which you illegally downloading copious amounts of audio and video. Why would Apple care about supporting piracy? If your argument is that you had these from "back in the day" then I have to wonder why you are still transcoding. For fraks sake, even Handbrake isn't support DivX as a codec anymore. All MP4 and AAC-based codecs.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

sorry - but I did not read through all the 100+ comments already posted but...

what occurred to me is that perhaps in order to meet a tight production deadline - they used the same manufacturing of the internal structural part for the iPad as was already on the shelf from other products - with the camera cutout - which may or may not indicate a plan to add a camera in the future - certainly leaves the option open.

if it were a matter of application or OS support - you'd think that they could have just made a quick photo app or something and then roll full video support etc into hardware rev 2.

With a camera - and an HDMI out option (even if via cable conversion) - and ability to stream Netflix and I might get one. Then again since Netflix is a competitor, I'm not holding my breath.

I wouldn't be surprised that there is a special team for the past few years working on porting OS X to run on ARM. Just like the secret team that was working on OS X for x86.

You are not a developer are you?

The iPhone and iPad both are already running OS X. It has a different UI and a different CPU. But it's OS X alright.

It's just not Mac OS X.

Apple could port the entirety of Mac OS X to the Arm processor. But what would be the point? To support applications which were never designed to run on a tablet? To acquire a UI that would be dreadful on a tablet?

Here's a suggestion: if you want to run Macintosh applications - Apple already make a range of computers to do exactly that. They are great. I have several. And Apple even make money selling them.

If you really want to see how a desktop UI works on a tablet, check-out Windows 7.

Come on, give it up. There will be NO FLASH SUPPORT on any iPhone or iPad device until Adobe can convince Apple that they have produced an optimised and profiled Flash build to run on these devices. Who here has used mobile flash? Its complete shit. Who here has run flash on 1.6ghz Atom powered netbook with 2GB ram running windows XP? Again, its total shit.

Try browsing the web with flash enabled on a netbook and when flash ads (especially those with fancy 'pop outs' or 'pop overs') and it grinds to a halt.

I don't know about you but flash NEEDS to be overhauled for modern low powered mobile devices.

The iPads the media saw could very well had cameras in them. They could have just had glass with blacked out area at the top fully filled in for the purpose. And of course, no software supporting it installed.

Maybe Apple wants to fully show it off when 4.0 hits and Apple was just not quite ready to show it?

And maybe 4.0 has some form of multi-tasking as well.

Flash will not happen but I guess that is good so people can still have something to bitch about.

Guys, Apple genius is the real magical part in all this. As some have pointed out:

1a. Announce and wow everybody as much as they can.
1b. Say "60 days" and "90 days for 3G"
2. See how many suckers erm.. I mean early adopters sign up
3. Analyse feedback and backlash, complaints
4. Watch all other tech companies sh*t themselves coming up with competitors
5. Watch said companies come up with stuff in 2 months
6a. See which telcos come begging for the device, if any
6b. See which publishers/etc come begging to partner with Apple, if any
7. In two months, items 1 to 6 will be clear
8. 2 weeks before launch and production ramp, drop appropriate bombs if needed:
(a) front-facing camera
(b) iChat app
(c) defined multitasking
(d) price drops

So, given the hysteria on how great or how crap it is, I say things are falling nicely into place for Apple.

They have everything laid out to decide whether to roll with this "crap underpowered no-multitasking no-camera piece of garbage without 3G" at $499, or throw a little glitter into the mix.

It could go both ways at this stage, I say. We have about 50 days to go to see what turns out.

You must remember Apple has a roadmap for this product and they have to put out a [highly] profitable device, they don't do loss-leaders.

Some features may come, some may never (like Blu Ray after all these years).

Maybe Apple wants to fully show it off when 4.0 hits and Apple was just not quite ready to show it?

I think there is a small possibility that the iPad will ship with a camera.

Remember that Apple's most important single product is the iPhone. And it's coming up for a major new A+ hardware update after the speed-bump that was the 3GS.

And what is the most likely new feature for the 4th Gen iPhone?
A forward-facing camera!

So my guess is that Apple will not announce iPad cameras BEFORE they have announced a forward-facing camera for the iPhone.
Big press event. Video chat demo with Phil. One more thing; We are also putting the camera into the iPad. The crowd goes wild.

So the question is: Is it credible that Apple will announce iPhone 4G in the next 60 days?

Normally, Apple launch handsets in June. But June is proceeded by May. May is also know as "the month no-one-buys-an-iPhone".

Apple now allowing VOIP over 3G I can see their 'one more thing' being multitasking and iChat with video camera on the iPad and next gen iPhone. Multitasking will probably only work on the next gen iPhone with a custom built chip.

I have been posting about ichat for eons. Video on these things is a must. That will be the beginning of the videophone that failed since the 80's. And I do think multitasking is a hardware issue not software. It's already on the iPhone but only with Apple's apps because there's less than 50mb left for other apps after the OS and Apple apps are used.

And I do think multitasking is a hardware issue not software. It's already on the iPhone but only with Apple's apps because there's less than 50mb left for other apps after the OS and Apple apps are used.

Multitasking is NOT a hardware issue. The current iPhone hardware multitasks just fine.

It is not a software issue either. Excellent software already exists which allows any app to run in the background.

Instead, it is a matter of a huge multinational corporation who thinks that their customers are too incompetent to handle it.

Agreed, but the number of fake photos that look as genuine, plausible, and convincing as this, are far and few between.

You might want to think back a little. Last week will do.

BTW, I'm not saying whether these are real or faked, because I have no way of knowing either way. I'm just poking a little completely justified fun at people who never learn their lesson, and automatically assume that they are genuine because they show what they want to believe. As for why anyone would fake photos, I think that's an easy one. Look how much attention this company is getting,

Instead, it is a matter of a huge multinational corporation who thinks that their customers are too incompetent to handle it.

Or it is a company that realises that a delivering a consistent experience is more important to users than playing Spotify while we read email. We asked the market what is the most important thing in a Smartphone?

Err. Multi-tasking?
Eh ehhhh - sorry. That isn't on the board. The market's top answer was consistency.

Consistency is helped when every app that launches gets 100% of the device's resources. The app doesn't have to share those resources with five or ten other apps in an unseemly bar-fight for CPU, RAM and battery.

I do think iPhone OS 4.0 will offer more ways of switching apps. And new ways of having some background activity.

But what Apple won't do is present you with a phone that is running at 10% of it's normal speed, and then have someone in tech-support explain that you have to open task-manager to shut down all the applications you forgot to close.